This Guy Says Fukushima Almost Ignited the Atmosphere BEFORE the Quake and Tsunami

In a thread about things happening before the quake and tsunami, how in the world does a meltdown in reactor one's occurring before the meltdown in
reactor three become relevant?

BTW, I am not a scientist, but I know the difference between input and output, as in plutonium in and plutonium out.

Anyway, MOX fuel is being blamed by Dana for making the meltdown in reactor three 2,000,000 times worst than it would have been had regular fuel been
used. And MOX fuel, as I and the Finnish guy intimated, is suspect for a crisis that possibly happened BEFORE the quake, tsunami, and of course, the
meltdowns.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough
Idk how any of your thread is relavant to fukushima. Just because some finish guy on you to said something doesn't make it relevant to the
situation. Just like every other thread you have posted on the subject your litteraly reaching as far as possible to turn this into something it is
not. So tell me what is the diffrence between "plutonium in and plutonium out" and how did MOX in the reactor make the meltdown 2,000,000 times
worse? Wait how is that relavant I thought we where talking about events before the earthquake?

I am very disappointed that I haven't gotten any feedback about how it makes more sense that the Daiichi nuclear plant workers fled before the
tsunami and not after it, and how this would support the premises of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video.

P.M.

How long do you think the period between an earthquake and a resulting tsunami is? The tsunami in question wasn't some random occurrence, it was
preceded by a significant earthquake, and there was a tsunami warning issued.

The earthquake took place at 14:46 JST (GMT 6:46) around 67 km (42 mi) from the nearest point on Japan's coastline, and initial estimates
indicated the tsunami would have taken 10 to 30 minutes to reach the areas first affected...

I don't know about you, but 10 minutes is plenty of time for me to get my ass out to my car and start driving.

I am very disappointed that I haven't gotten any feedback about how it makes more sense that the Daiichi nuclear plant workers fled before the tsunami
and not after it, and how this would support the premises of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video.

P.M.

How long do you think the period between an earthquake and a resulting tsunami is? The tsunami in question wasn't some random occurrence, it was
preceded by a significant earthquake, and there was a tsunami warning issued.

The earthquake took place at 14:46 JST (GMT 6:46) around 67 km (42 mi) from the nearest point on Japan's coastline, and initial estimates
indicated the tsunami would have taken 10 to 30 minutes to reach the areas first affected...

I don't know about you, but 10 minutes is plenty of time for me to get my ass out to my car and start driving.

Sorry guy, but you did not read my earlier reply-post in which I was more specific on the timing of things by speculating about an evacuation that may
have taken place BEFORE BOTH the earthquake and tsunami.

I am also sorry if my omission in the reply-post at hand confused any issues.

I am very disappointed that I haven't gotten any feedback about how it makes more sense that the Daiichi nuclear plant workers fled before the
tsunami and not after it, and how this would support the premises of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video.

P.M.

How long do you think the period between an earthquake and a resulting tsunami is? The tsunami in question wasn't some random occurrence, it was
preceded by a significant earthquake, and there was a tsunami warning issued.

The earthquake took place at 14:46 JST (GMT 6:46) around 67 km (42 mi) from the nearest point on Japan's coastline, and initial estimates
indicated the tsunami would have taken 10 to 30 minutes to reach the areas first affected...

I don't know about you, but 10 minutes is plenty of time for me to get my ass out to my car and start driving.

I sorry guy, but you did not read my earlier reply-post in which I was more specific on the timing of things by speculating about an evacuation that
may have taken place BEFORE BOTH the earthquake and tsunami. I am also sorry if my omission in the reply-post at hand confused any issues.

P.M.

Can you provide proof that the facility was evacuated before the earthquake?

I am very disappointed that I haven't gotten any feedback about how it makes more sense that the Daiichi nuclear plant workers fled before the
tsunami and not after it, and how this would support the premises of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video.

P.M.

How long do you think the period between an earthquake and a resulting tsunami is? The tsunami in question wasn't some random occurrence, it was
preceded by a significant earthquake, and there was a tsunami warning issued.

The earthquake took place at 14:46 JST (GMT 6:46) around 67 km (42 mi) from the nearest point on Japan's coastline, and initial estimates
indicated the tsunami would have taken 10 to 30 minutes to reach the areas first affected...

I don't know about you, but 10 minutes is plenty of time for me to get my ass out to my car and start driving.

I sorry guy, but you did not read my earlier reply-post in which I was more specific on the timing of things by speculating about an evacuation that
may have taken place BEFORE BOTH the earthquake and tsunami. I am also sorry if my omission in the reply-post at hand confused any issues.

P.M.

Can you provide proof that the facility was evacuated before the earthquake?

Do you know why proof of speculation is inadmissible in a court of law?

Do you know why proof of speculation is inadmissible in a court of law?

ANSWER: Because it is an oxymoron.

P.M.

That was my point. So all you have is speculation. I can also speculate a lot of things but speculation is also inadmissible in court. So if we are
sticking to court rules as you seem to wan't to do than you should not speculate. Or use hearsay that is not back by evidence. i.e.. "So and so from
youtube youtube said this."

The most important prerequisites to be a witness are memory and perception. To be a witness, a person must have perceived the matter in question, and
they must remember it. If they do not remember, or did not perceive, the matter, then their testimony is speculation and it is inadmissible.

Do you know why proof of speculation is inadmissible in a court of law?

ANSWER: Because it is an oxymoron.

P.M.

That was my point. So all you have is speculation.

Hmmmm, a little late to make that assertion, now isn't it?

I thought that I made it perfectly clear early on that I was speculating.

But to wrap it up: I feel that the message of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video cited in the original post together with speculation that the
Daiichi plant workers evacuated before the earthquake and tsunami made much more sense than the speculative theories from other sources IMHO.

But to wrap it up: I feel that the message of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video cited in the original post together with speculation that the
Daiichi plant workers evacuated before the earthquake and tsunami made much more sense than the speculative theories from other sources IMHO.

Here is the thing about theories and what your youtube uploader gave was a theory. As my signature says.

This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon its not up to me
to prove it does not exist its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.